Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
IN IRELAND, THE gender pay gap is just under 14%. That’s the difference between the average gross earnings of women and men. If you shave 14% off the end of the year, you land roughly on today’s date: 10 November.
So, we’re designating today as Ireland’s Equal Pay Day – the day on which women effectively stop earning for the rest of the year.
In the past few months, the extent of the gender pay gap at the BBC was revealed, followed swiftly by reports of a similar situation at RTÉ. More recently still, the revelations emerging from the film and theatre industries in the US, the UK and here at home have brought into sharp focus the discrimination, ill-treatment and challenges faced by women at work.
Progress on equal pay
It’s all well and good to deplore the fact a pay gap exists and not all workplaces promote equality, but what can be done about it? For the past two years, we’ve run an annual Equal Pay campaign and one of the solutions we’ve highlighted is greater wage transparency.
A Bill is currently working its way through the Oireachtas, which – if passed into law – will go some way towards achieving this. Mirroring existing regulations in the UK, it will give the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission power to compel employers of 50 or more to regularly report on their gender pay gap.
Alongside this legislative development, the government has recently run a public consultation on tackling the gender pay gap. Dress for Success Dublin made a submission to this consultation, outlining the actions we believe need to be taken.
These include:
Mandatory shared parental leave
In Ireland, mothers are entitled to 26 weeks’ paid maternity leave, and a further 16 weeks’ unpaid leave. Fathers are entitled to just two weeks’ paternity leave. In contrast, in Sweden, for example, parents get 480 days’ leave to split between them and it is mandatory for fathers to take at least 90 days of this allocation.
In the UK, the mandatory maternity leave period is 12 weeks, with a further 40 weeks to be split between parents as they wish. Similar models are in place in Norway, Iceland, Denmark and elsewhere. The introduction of mandatory shared parental leave – to be split between couples as they see fit – is a key step in addressing the gender pay gap.
Furthermore, men must be encouraged and supported to avail of their parental leave entitlements: in August of this year, it emerged only one-third of new fathers had taken their two weeks’ paternity benefit since it was introduced last year.
If fathers are supported to play a more equitable role in childcare, there are obvious benefits for women. Firstly, it makes it less likely that women will miss out on promotions or pay rises because of gaps in their CVs. Secondly, it makes it less likely that employers will discriminate against women when hiring or awarding promotions. Thirdly, it societally embeds a culture of equality, empathy and understanding in the home, mitigating against cultural inequalities in the workplace.
Shared parental leave will also contribute to addressing gender stereotypes, which can limit women’s and girls’ educational and occupational opportunities from the youngest age.
Impact for lower-income earners
One concern we have about the debate on pay equality is that women in more precarious jobs and on lower salaries are often overlooked. In the media and in public discourse, the focus tends to be on high-income earners in high-profile roles or corporate boardroom settings.
The experiences of the poorest and most vulnerable women are not as well documented, for example women in lower-income roles, part-time positions, on zero-hour contracts, and with lower levels of educational attainment.
The majority of low-paid and part-time workers in Ireland are women. Women also typically enter retirement with lower pensions than men, often because they assumed caring duties for children or other family-members over the course of their working lives.
As part of our Equal Pay campaign, we’re engaging with politicians in national and local government. We’re highlighting to them the steps that can be taken to proactively tackle the gender pay gap, and to promote workplace equality – in all types of workplaces and at all levels.
Angela Smith is CEO of Dress for Success Dublin. Further information about Dress for Success Dublin’s Equal Pay campaign is available here. #EqualPayDfSD
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Who’s more dishonest?
Prisoners or the ones they’d be voting for?
It seams like prisoners have more rights than their victims
If you read the judgement, the ECHR (not the Court of Justice in Europe, by the way) objects to a blanket ban on all prisoners voting. They agree, in principle, that some prisoners can be banned, but not all. So I’m not sure how you’re arguing that a mugger has more voting rights than the victim or a drug dealer has more voting rights than a drug user.
They’ll have more voting rights than everyone who’s been forced to emigrate. Commit a murder and you get to be involved in shaping a government?! Enforced emigrants can’t vote from abroad so can’t help reshape the government that caused their exodus. Something’s wrong with that picture.
If you read the judgement, you would have noted they don’t say it has to be extended to murderers, simply that a blanket ban against all prisoners is disproportionate. What about those serving minor sentences?
I think it would be really interesting for Irish emigrants to take a case to the ECHR, however. It’d be a good case with these precedents.
Even more reason to leave the EU
The EU and the European Convention of Human Rights are two separate organisations.
Nick, EU Membership requires accession to the ECHR.
Do you think he was referencing that distinction or that he had confused the two? I’m betting on the latter….
I’m more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You’re clearly less cynical than I am. :-) Regardless, I do think there’s a lack of understanding of the distinctions between the two and it’s important that when we’re talking about it, that it’s clearly pointed out what the ECHR does and what the Court of Justice of Europe does.
How far can the ECHR go in interfering with the way countries are run?
Surely suffrage is a constitutional matter.
I don’t believe that prisoners voting is mentioned in the Italian constitution (certainly not in the UK). I heard the arguments being made on behalf of the prisoners and it was quite compelling – the idea that when politicians (not constitutions) define who should be able to vote, it’s a dangerous concept of democracy.
Suffrage is generally granted by the state. Should it be imposed from above?
And the UK doesn’t have a written consitution it has a history through law.
It seems it comes down to how much you believe that voting is a human right and how much you think it should be a sovereign matter. Considering that voting has typically been denied to women and minorities in a lot of states, I view it as a basic human right (of course, I’m in the minority that believes children should be able to vote, so I doubt I’m representative of the whole populace).
If you perceive voting as a basic human right, this judgement makes a lot of sense. You don’t seem to view it as a right, but as something which states can legitimately deny portions of the population.
Sorry, I’ve been agog since I read that you want kids to vote.
They can’t decide whether they want sausages or fish fingers for dinner but you want them to elect governments.
Mad. As.
I believe in pure democracy. But I don’t think they can do worse than some other voters in Europe!
Diluting the franchise doesn’t strengthen it, unless you believe in homeopathy.
I don’t know what that comparison is about, but if you argue that you believe in universal suffrage, there should be no exceptions. But then we’ve already established you believe governments should be able to take the vote away from people without any form of oversight.
I also would love to live in a society governed by pure democracy but could only ever work if everyone was informed on what they have the power to vote on, take for example some people I’ve meet recently who plan on voting yes, they can only reiterate what the TV told them about “stability” and future bailouts. They hadn’t the foggiest clue what I was on about when I mentioned my concerns and skepticism over certain articles of the treaty or our relation to the ESM if we ratify it what it means to vote Yes and our then commitments, they switch off and say “ah but shure the Gov. are looking for a yes so we can get more money and the no are a bunch of shinners and out from the fringes as usual”
These people who wont go to the bother of looking into what they been asked to make an informed decision and vote on are dangerous, and a sad byproduct of democracy led by laziness and persuasion when they will vote the way they are told if its repeated enough times and made sound the safer option between the ads for Eurovision.
Even though they will not question the accuracy or merits of what they are taking as positive points.
This can be said for people who vote the other way also mind, but since the Gov are pushing these things in a certain direction pure democracy has little chance of achieving its true potential of everyone in society making a valid contribution through their informed decision when real assessments and clear wordings are absent and drowned out with garbage, garjon and scaremongering.
My understanding of an individual being punished for crimes committed means ‘no rights to anything that is happening in the outside world. Did the crime – do the time!
It is in my opinion that if you are in prison for committing a crime you forfeit your right to vote until you are rehabilitated and released!
Next thing you know they’ll expect the jails to let the inmates nip down to their local voting centres, “of course we’ll be back, honest g’vnor.”
Sinn fein will be thrilled!
have your say